Satellite Camp ban overturned, 11of 12 Pac-12 Coaches did not want ban

Message from the Pac-12 and their representative UCLA Chancellor Dan Guerrero:

Dear Pac-12 Council Colleagues-

As many of you know, we have received inquiries, both internally and externally, related to our conference position on NCAA legislation as it relates to “satellite Football camps,” considering our Pac-12 Council position against banning (i.e., and instead “tabling”) such events.

To that end, see below for a note from our NCAA Council rep, Dan Guerrero, explaining how the voting went down at the NCAA Council meeting last week.

Take care,
Jamie

(Note to Pac-12 Council from Dan Guerrero)

Dear Pac-12 colleagues,

Recognizing the inquiries made to the Pac-12 Conference office about the decision rendered at NCAA Division 1 Council meeting this past week to pass Proposal 2015-59, ending  “satellite camps”, I thought it best to convey my rationale for voting to support this piece of legislation.  Prior to these meetings, I had extensive conversations with Pac-12 representatives in regard to the Conference’s position on a number of legislative proposals – the “satellite camp” proposals included. With

a 0-11-1

vote cast by the Pac-12 Council, a vote to oppose proposals 2015-59 (sponsored by the ACC) and 2015-60, (sponsored by the SEC) was the charge with the ultimate goal to refer the legislation to the Football Oversight Committee (FOC).

Going into the meetings, it was the feeling of many members of the D1 Council that these proposals would be tabled at the request of the FOC, thereby rendering both of these proposals moot and keeping the current rule relative to “satellite camps” unchanged.  In fact, this was the preferred outcome by our Conference as indicated in the preparatory materials I received prior to the meeting.

When this did not happen, it was conveyed on the Council floor that the FOC was supportive of 2015-59 and/or 2015-60. Based on the subsequent discussion it appeared as though passage was imminent. Therefore, I made the call to support 2015-59, which was the preference of the two options.

Proposal 2015-59 was clearly preferable from a Pac-12 perspective because it is aligned with current Pac-12 legislation SPR 6-6(a) that limits institutional camps to the campus.  If 2015-60 had passed, other conferences would have had a more lenient camp rule than the Pac-12 . As such, avoiding that outcome became my top priority.

When my read of the situation was that 2015-59 was going to pass, regardless of a Pac-12 vote against, I voted in favor of this proposition as it was the more consistent of the two with current Pac-12 legislation.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on the process.

Thanks,
Director of Athletics, UCLA

Jamie Zaninovich
Deputy Commissioner/Chief Operating Officer
Pac-12

Umm..nope…oh well, it looks like he was voting for the lesser of two evils, both banning satellite camps. Or, it seems that he thought his vote didn’t matter because after all, it was going to a different committee.

Next: NFL Draft: Where there’s a Will there’s a way

Whatever the case, 11 coaches in the Pac-12 are smiling, we are assuming all except for those in Westwood.

ZonaZealots is still curious why Larry Scott sent a UCLA representative from the one school who voted for the ban to represent the 11 schools who didn’t want a ban. What do you think about this decision? Let us know in the comments below.